Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[tangalog2200]

You seem to be quite a ways back from where we are and your reply seems to jump from one place to another and I cant follow your point if there is one .

So I will wrap it up briefly , this is a public forum conversations are not locked inside railway track , things said change and meander around a topic not fixed in concrete as much as you would like this to be .

It is very obvious you are biased and not open minded but closed minded and vindictive , you want one suspected drug cheat burned at the stake and then to totally ignore the case against the other .

If we as fans are to be balanced there is a case to be answered from both fighters , we dont need to have specific threads to inquire about PED use surely we can disuses similaritys when so much pointed at one as proof of guilt is exactly the same with the other you wish to excuse .

I have asked you to explain why Pauli can throw so much direct abuse at Manny , accuse him so directly of being a PEDS cheat and yet Manny does nothing , this absence of defence from Manny by your own account is the very proof of guilt by Floyd , yet you do not want to apply the same rational to Manny why is that so ?



It seems youre confused to the facts , both substances are legal , as Pauli points out if Manny had asked for Cortisone right before the fight as any other fighter would it would have been granted , he asked for Toradol right before the fight and was refused , Pauli also states why Toradol was refused at such a late time .
Have a listen carefully and dont shut out what you dont want to hear just think about the strength of the accusations , note how direct and personal they are , and then ask yourself why does Manny let this man say these things all over the internet .

now that's stuff above is full of self-serving and conflicting statements; let me dissect your points one by one..

" and your reply seems to jump from one place to another"..

hmmm...the thread is about the iv scandal...who put in pauli first? you? me? did pauli prepared the iv set up? what has pauli got to do with the iv scandal? was he the nurse or paramedic? so who's jumping from one place to another? and pac? what was his involvement in the iv scandal?

"conversations are not locked inside railway track , things said change and meander around a topic not fixed in concrete as much as you would like this to be ."

the problem with that kind of conversation is that the discussions are led astray or nothing coherent comes out as posters are likely to pull the discussions in the direction that serves their interest or the interest of their idol...it is a very messy way of discussing a topic....that's why an agenda is first prepared for a meeting (say like in corporate board meetings) and that's why we have a sticky thread for a particular topic...

"It is very obvious you are biased and not open minded but closed minded and vindictive , you want one suspected drug cheat burned at the stake and then to totally ignore the case against the other ."

totally wrong! totally ignore the other? are you blind or slow up there? didn't i ask you about pauli/paulina? or opening a thread about accusations on pac?

on toradol, i think there was a thread that touched on this..so put your thoughts in that thread...

people could not very well mix so many issues in one thread...could not allow so many deflections/diversions...

[ADP02]

A good discussion? If it wasn't a good discussion in your eyes then why bother coming back into the thread?

Also, in ANY context when one states ''significant'' it should be an implication of an object, in this case the noun.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

The bird showed significant signs of fear.
The bird showed signs of fear.

The dog showed significant signs of hunger.
The dog showed signs of hunger.

Is there an absolute or difference between the sentences?

When people start doing what you are doing, its usually a sign of "guilty". reminds me of Bill Clinton and telling people what the word "is" meant.


Be objective for a second. Read the FULL text. See also from who's viewpoint this is coming from and if it makes sense that the writer is trying to think like an overprotective Floyd fan.

To me and almost everyone else who read it, they were letting us know that Floyd was not dehydrated to the point that he required an IV. Maybe you think otherwise but lets start with that. If you understood that then you will understand where you are "stuck" in you understanding. Its really simple but I get it, you want to defend your hero at all costs.

[Lester Tutor]

now that's stuff above is full of self-serving and conflicting statements; let me dissect your points one by one..

" and your reply seems to jump from one place to another"..

hmmm...the thread is about the iv scandal...who put in pauli first? you? me? did pauli prepared the iv set up? what has pauli got to do with the iv scandal? was he the nurse or paramedic? so who's jumping from one place to another? and pac? what was his involvement in the iv scandal?

"conversations are not locked inside railway track , things said change and meander around a topic not fixed in concrete as much as you would like this to be ."

the problem with that kind of conversation is that the discussions are led astray or nothing coherent comes out as posters are likely to pull the discussions in the direction that serves their interest or the interest of their idol...it is a very messy way of discussing a topic....that's why an agenda is first prepared for a meeting (say like in corporate board meetings) and that's why we have a sticky thread for a particular topic...

"It is very obvious you are biased and not open minded but closed minded and vindictive , you want one suspected drug cheat burned at the stake and then to totally ignore the case against the other ."

totally wrong! totally ignore the other? are you blind or slow up there? didn't i ask you about pauli/paulina? or opening a thread about accusations on pac?

on toradol, i think there was a thread that touched on this..so put your thoughts in that thread...

people could not very well mix so many issues in one thread...could not allow so many deflections/diversions...

Seriously? Adding the Paulie videos are more like cliff notes for Floyd Haters like yourself. It's intended to make the comprehension easier for you.

You ask why relate Paulie videos? Because this thread revolves around opinions regarding PED accusations. Cmon... don't act the coward, please. Paulie is the pro boxer over what experience do you have? He's making statements publicly and a known figure in boxing let alone a former champ? THat's not good enough for you right?

[lane99]

The available evidence shows Mayweather wasn't severely dehydrated, so the question remains why he took a massive IV which is a prohibited procedure. Masking PEDs or other prohibited procedures is the most likely answer.

[Lester Tutor]

When people start doing what you are doing, its usually a sign of "guilty". reminds me of Bill Clinton and telling people what the word "is" meant.


Be objective for a second. Read the FULL text. See also from who's viewpoint this is coming from and if it makes sense that the writer is trying to think like an overprotective Floyd fan.

To me and almost everyone else who read it, they were letting us know that Floyd was not dehydrated to the point that he required an IV. Maybe you think otherwise but lets start with that. If you understood that then you will understand where you are "stuck" in you understanding. Its really simple but I get it, you want to defend your hero at all costs.

lol. I'm not objective? I'm one of the most defacto objective kats on this forum.

Btw, your rebuttal sounds insecure and you're going in circles. Why don't you instead dissect my sentences or refute them instead of
strawman tactics or theories as to why repliers ''act or feel'' a certain way..

sigh

[ADP02]

Thanks, appreciate this. Respectfully, I didn't reach the same conclusion you did from reading this. I'm going to think about this some more.

lol. I'm not objective? I'm one of the most defacto objective kats on this forum.

Btw, your rebuttal sounds insecure and you're going in circles. Why don't you instead dissect my sentences or refute them instead of
strawman tactics or theories as to why repliers ''act or feel'' a certain way..

sigh

Look, even Big Dunn disagrees with you. When even a Floyd fan like Big D thinks you are wrong then you need to rethink your viewpoint.


I can't believe I'm agreeing with Big D on something.

[The Big Dunn]

Look, even Big Dunn disagrees with you. When even a Floyd fan like Big D thinks you are wrong then you need to rethink your viewpoint.


I can't believe I'm agreeing with Big D on something.

I didn't say he was wrong, I just said I reached a different conclusion after reading what he posted.

I think you are wrong and are desperately trying to find something that allows you to avoid facing the reality that Floyd beat Manny because he is better than him.

[tangalog2200]

If you make a case or theory that Floyd wasn't dehydrated at all, you don't make a statement saying that ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.'' There is something Hauser doesn't want to disclose from his own knowledge and sources, perhaps there are some empirical evidences that he knows about... so if that's the case, Hauser would look totally foolish with the fiasco he started. Therefore, Plan B is to state, and keep in mind - all his original theory is his opinion and plausible IF Floyd were guilty, but since he isn't, the best Hauser can now approach is acknowledge and apologize sub textually that Floyd was not ''significantly dehydrated.''

The guy is a good writer. For those of us that can read, we know exactly what he's insinuating. He bargained with the fiction. He didn't win. He lost some respect in the circuit. He's no coming out saying that Floyd could've been dehydrated, BUT, perhaps still saying he put something in the IV, which Hauser has yet provided a plot nor the guidance from Conte to makeup some kind of fictional scenario to mask 750ml within a day's frame.

"If you make a case or theory that Floyd wasn't dehydrated at all, you don't make a statement saying that ''Floyd showed no signs of significant dehydration.''

one thing i think you are forgetting is that it's floyd's camp (please correct me if i'm wrong) that did say floyd was dehydrated that lead to the iv use....that was the excuse forwarded...

you see where i am going? the NOUN came from floyd's camp! not from usada? yes? no?

so how is hauser to discuss this point about the NOUN without using the NOUN that came from floyd's camp themselves?

[DeadLikeMe]

I didn't say he was wrong, I just said I reached a different conclusion after reading what he posted.

I think you are wrong and are desperately trying to find something that allows you to avoid facing the reality that Floyd beat Manny because he is better than him.

This is what every single post of theirs is really about.

[Slip Stream]

I didn't say he was wrong, I just said I reached a different conclusion after reading what he posted.

I think you are wrong and are desperately trying to find something that allows you to avoid facing the reality that Floyd beat Manny because he is better than him.

Yeah, kind of. Reality is optional in this thread....